Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT <br />September 23, 2004 <br />Page 6 <br />Ernest Solomon, 27500 Elena Road, asked how the antenna would be raised during an <br />earthquake (response -has an emergency generator). As the Director of the Purissima Water <br />District, he noted that the District and the Town are in negations regarding lease arrangement for <br />an antenna on their La Cresta tank. He asked how this proposed antenna may impact the La <br />Cresta tank or visa versa or is the La Cresta antenna still needed. <br />Mr. Abraham responded that the antenna is still needed. They have found in previous drills that <br />in spite of having the repeater there, they still run out of communication medium as the repeater <br />is saturated with people talking back and forth on it. If there was an emergency, they would need <br />more capability to communicate. The only way to provide this is to achieve enough height to get <br />into the west part of Town. <br />Mr. Solomon continued asking if there was some mechanism so that District operations <br />personnel can be notified of an earthquake or other emergencies which could impact water <br />supplies. Mr. Abraham felt this could be coordinated through the ham operators relaying <br />information they receive from the Town's staff and the emergency operations center, <br />communicating directly to Purissima Water District. The goal of the emergency communication <br />committee is to serve the Town and the residents. <br />Richard Jones, 12666 La Cresta Drive, stated he was not opposed to this antenna but there are <br />some conditions that are lacking such as no lights on the antenna, no commercial use, and no <br />unanticipated load on the power distribution grid. He asked if this project is going to involve any <br />increase in development area as he understood that in 1993 it was determined that the property <br />was 3,575 square feet over the MDA. If the project is going to add any additional development <br />area, whatever is added should be reduced elsewhere on the property. The Planning Director <br />noted that the tower footings are generally not counted as development area and if it did it would <br />be 36 square feet which is not the main issue. Mr. Jones continued stating he can see the top 30 <br />feet of the 40 foot antenna from his property as well as his neighbor's. <br />Jim Waschura, 12658 La Cresta Court, felt it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to <br />protect neighbors in this situation. He felt the neighbors would be harmed by this project. He <br />will see this tower from his front and back yards. Currently he has another 50 foot tower on the <br />other side of his property and has not grown accustomed to it and this current project will be 2.5 <br />times higher than the story pole indicates. He noted that the top of the antenna placed on the top <br />of the proposed tower would not even St into the multi-purpose room. PRB-1 does not <br />guarantee any particular amateur the right to put up any particular type of antenna. If no suitable <br />compromise can be worked out with the particular amateur, his request for an antenna can be <br />rejected. He investigated the Bosscher versus Algoma Township proceedings, providing the <br />following quotes : (1) The language of PRB-1 itself confers only a limited Federal preemption, <br />and promotes the Federal interest in amateur radio operations rather than any individual <br />operator's right to erect the antenna of his or her choice. (2) Both the text of PRB-1 and the cases <br />applying it have roundly dismissed the notion that an amateur radio operator is entitled to a tower <br />sufficient to enable him to engage in any type of communication he wishes to engage in. (3) <br />Application of this reasonable accommodation standard does not require the city to allow the <br />amateur to erect any antenna he desires. (4) Given that plaintiff is not entitled to any tower he <br />